The real power of rights is not religion

It’s not useful to debate whether human rights derive
from religion or to include religious leaders only as token voices. What we
need are authentic alliances with faith groups that harness the real power of
the rights movement: a belief that we are all equal in dignity and rights. A contribution to the openGlobalRights debate,Religion and Human
Rights. Español

The misuse of religion has posed one of the bigger challenges to the human rights movement... Above, protests are staged in Tunis against religious violence and extremism in October 2011. Mirak Hikimori/Demotix (All rights reserved)

To what extent can we push the relationship of human
rights and religion, without compromising the very things we are fighting for? Larry Cox recently argued in openGlobalRights
that the real power of the human rights movement comes from its religious
dimensions. And yet, Cox himself states that, “some of the most spectacular
expressions of religious fervor come from groups that promote violence,
intolerance, misogyny and homophobia.” Given that the misuse of religion to
justify oppression has been one of the bigger challenges the human rights
movement has faced, we must be very cautious about taking this connection too far.

This debate, of course, has been churning for decades.
Fifteen years ago, Louis Henkin observed that, “religions have not
been notable for commitment to gender equality. Some religions have not escaped
the brush of slavery. Some religions have been charged with propagating, or
tolerating, hatred of some group or another (e.g. anti-Semitism). At various
times, in various places, religion—some religion—has not avoided practices that
are horrendous, or surely highly questionable from the human rights
perspective.”

Even if this weren’t the case, it’s not particularly useful
to quibble about whether human rights law derives from religion, non-religious
ideas from the Enlightenment, twentieth-century responses to the scourge of two
world wars, or a combination of the above. In truth, where does that argument
really get us?

Cox is absolutely correct when he says that human
rights activists can do more to find common ground with religious communities and
can benefit from alliances with faith-based groups. Some of the most effective
human rights advocacy on the death penalty, enforced disappearance, prison
conditions, and torture has been in partnership with, and in some cases led by,
religious leaders.

In fact, Jo Becker,
the advocacy director for Human Rights Watch’s Children’s Rights Division, has
concluded that in recent years, broad-based and strategic alliances are the
heart of the most successful human rights advocacy efforts. But these
partnerships hardly require a debate on the religious foundations of the rights
movement in order to be effective.

Amnesty International and other international human
rights organizations come to the table with many strengths, but they frequently
lack the first-hand credibility and local expertise of faith-based and other grassroots
groups. And because it’s often difficult to predict with any certainty what
point of pressure will prove to be the tipping point that generates change, a
multifaceted approach increases the chances of success.

But this doesn’t mean we can just push for the entire
rights movement to “get religion.” After all, alliances are most effective when
they are equal partnerships, where each party knows and respects the others’
perspectives, and where they can agree to disagree along the way to finding common
ground. The best alliances are more than the sum of their parts. A diverse group of advocates speaking with a
single message can smash stereotypes and provoke profound changes in attitudes
and policy.

Indeed, such alliances harness the real power of the
human rights movement: its proposition that we are all equal in dignity and
rights, regardless of gender, color, faith, or any of the innumerable other
facets of our identities.

These alliances are not effective, however, when
they’re not authentic—for example, when religious communities feel that their
faith is being instrumentalized, and that they’re being invited to the party purely
for the numbers they bring. Nor are they convincing if faith has only a token
seat at the table. Of course, when it comes to matters of faith and belief, we
all have a claim to practice religion and hold other beliefs as a matter of
right. In practical terms, this means that we can and should hold states as
strictly to account for infringement of religious freedom as we do for
violations of other rights.

...But human rights include the right to freedom of religion. Above, Tibetan refugees from Katmandu are arrested during a peace march while trying to cross the Nepal-Tibet border in June 2009. Edwin Koo/Demotix (All rights reserved)

There’s no question that this is an imperative.
Freedom of religion is under serious threat in many parts of the world. To cite
just a few examples, in China, Buddhists and Christians who practice their
religion outside officially sanctioned channels, along with Falun Gong
practitioners, have been tortured, subjected to arbitrary detention, and faced
other serious restrictions on their right to freedom of religion.

In sum, human rights include the right to freedom of
religion, and it’s certainly worth remembering that. Cox is correct when he
says we need rights to protect the power of faith in people’s lives and guard
against its misuse. But this connection is not the same as pushing for religious
keystones in human rights. Despite Cox’s statement that most religions preach a
love of all people, distortions of these religions often preach quite the
opposite. Therefore it is essential to insist that the state not legislate on
the basis of a single conception of morality. This is where the linkages
between human rights and religion become highly problematic, especially in
countries with multiple religions in conflict.

Of course, human rights activists work regularly with
partners in faith communities and should increase that collaboration. If that’s
what Cox means by “getting religion”—that we need to understand it better and
reflect it more consistently in our work—then fair enough. Point taken.

But should human rights “get religion,” in the sense
of embracing a faith-based underpinning to human rights norms? That’s a dubious
proposition that risks more than it stands to gain.

About the author

Michael
Garcia Bochenek is the Senior Director of International Law and Policy leading
the development of human rights policies and analysis for Amnesty
International. Prior to joining Amnesty International, he
worked as a researcher and then as deputy director of the Children's Rights
Division at Human Rights Watch.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Recent comments

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.